Friday, July 25, 2008

Ten Years of BCS: 2003

The Guru's Note: Beginning in June, the Guru will publish a review of each of the 10 seasons since the Bowl Championship Series came into existence in 1998. In this series -- Ten Years of BCS -- the Guru will examine the results from these seasons -- who got lucky and who got robbed, what could've been, what should've been and other controversies of the day. The series will appear weekly leading up to the 2008 season.

========================

The epic Miami-Ohio State showdown in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl, even with the attendant controversy at the end of the game, gave the BCS a huge sigh of relief. "The system works!" went the battle cry.

No, it doesn't. And it most certainly didn't in the 2003 season, when the BCS was met with catastrophe -- the very scenario that the system was created to avoid: A split national championship.

In its first five years of existence, while there were disagreements and debates about certain teams' merits to be included in the championship game, there had never been a case where the BCS champion was deemed unworthy, or not been crowned by the Associated Press, which maintained its independence.

But in 2003, it all happened. Going into the final weekend of the season, three teams were vying for two spots in the Sugar Bowl. USC had one loss -- at Cal in triple overtime, 34-31. As did LSU -- to Florida at home, 19-7. No. 1 Oklahoma was undefeated going into the Big XII title game against Kansas State.

Even before the games were played on that final Saturday, word was that the Sooners would stay No. 1, even if they lost the game. (Keep in mind that the Guru wasn't in business back then, or you'd known that as certainty.) The computers favored Oklahoma by a wide margin, and, since all other teams besides USC and LSU had at least two losses, Oklahoma would not drop to lower than No. 3 in the human polls. Put it together, the Big XII title game was a mere exhibition with very little riding on it.

And the Sooners played like it, getting pasted by Kansas State, 35-7. After LSU beat Georgia in the SEC title game and USC romped past Oregon State, as expected, USC ascended to No. 1 in both polls while LSU moved up to No. 2.

In the penultimate BCS standings, USC had a comfortable lead on LSU (6.90 vs. 8.43). The Trojans were ranked higher in the human polls and computer rankings and also had better strength-of-schedule ratings. The expectation was that USC would play Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl with LSU left to howl.

But then Boise State beat Hawaii.

Say what?

Exactly right, that's what happened. Combined with Syracuse's 38-12 pasting of Notre Dame, the Tigers got enough of a boost to nudge out USC by .16 of a percentage point, getting Oklahoma as their date while the Trojans were left with a Rose Bowl berth against No. 4 Michigan.

A confluence of events made this happen, and pretty much all of it the BCS's fault:

1. Eliminating margin of victory from all computer equations: This completely unnecessary step was taken gradually, out of an irrational fear of teams running up the scores to impress computers. By 2003, all BCS computers had agreed to abide by this restriction, in some cases reluctantly. Because of this, Oklahoma's 4-touchdown debacle was weighed the same as a road loss in triple overtime. Since the BCS wasn't able to legislate how the voters think (yet, anyway), the polls appropriately knocked the Sooners down to No. 3. But the computers overwhelmingly went for Oklahoma.

2. Keeping strength of schedule (SOS) as a component: Strangely, with all the tweaking in the first five years, the BCS never touched this. First of all, it's hardly an objective tool, almost as arbitrary as the human polls. The formula being used was a poor imitation of the RPI (used by the NCAA basketball selection committee) and called for an absurd division of 25 to produce the SOS number. Besides, all computer rankings have formulas for strength of schedule of their own, so at the very least it's redundant. Teams playing a soft schedule would've been punished enough by the computers anyway.

3. If you can't beat them ... tank them: Notre Dame was routed by the Trojans, 45-14, in South Bend, so the Irish returned the favor ... by getting blown out at Syracuse on the final Saturday of the season. Notre Dame's loss dealt USC's SOS rating a fatal blow. That, combined with Boise State's 45-28 win over Hawaii, another team beaten by USC earlier in the year, catapulted LSU over USC. The Tigers, by beating Georgia for the second time in the season, saw their SOS rating jump from 54th to 29th while USC's held at 37th. LSU beat USC by .30 of a percentage point in the SOS ratings, the difference it needed to seal its hold on the No. 2 spot.

For the record, USC played at Auburn and Notre Dame and played home games against Hawaii and BYU while LSU faced Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana Tech and I-AA Western Illinois at home and Arizona on the road. Just how LSU's schedule could be considered to be among the top 30 in the country showed the flaw in the SOS ratings.

At the end, USC impressively defeated Michigan, 28-14, in the Rose Bowl and held onto the No. 1 AP ranking and a share of the national championship. In a rather sloppy and uninspired game, LSU edged Oklahoma, 21-14, for the BCS title -- though not without one last bit of drama.

Despite a mandate to vote for the BCS title game winner No. 1 in the final poll, three coaches (Mike Bellotti, Ron Turner and Lou Holtz) broke the contractual agreement and cast their No. 1 ballot for USC. The Tigers got their half of the title, but were quickly forgotten as USC romped to the BCS title games the following two seasons. The general acknowledgement that the Trojans won "back-to-back" national championships in 2003 and 2004 left many LSU fans embittered to this day.

* The Snub of Miami of Ohio -- After losing the season opener to Iowa, 21-3, junior quarterback Ben Roethlisberger led the Red Hawks to 12 consecutive victories, beating Bowling Green for a second time in the Mid-American title game. Bowling Green, incidentally, lost only three times - twice to Miami and once at Ohio State, 24-17.

But despite a No. 11 ranking in the BCS standings, Miami never had a chance for an at-large berth. Even though the Red Hawks were "eligible," they received no consideration from the four BCS bowls and ended up finishing a 13-1 season by routing Louisville in the GMAC Bowl.

Until before the 2006 season, a non-BCS school had to be ranked in the top six for a guaranteed spot in a BCS bowl game. Under congressional pressure and with the advent of a fifth -- the BCS national championship game -- bowl, the standard for "mid-major" schools were relaxed to guarantee a spot for any team in the top 12. Too late for Miami and Big Ben, though.

* The Texas Shaft: Despite being ranked No. 5 in both polls, the Longhorns were shut out of a BCS bowl berth thanks to Kansas State's upset victory over Oklahoma. With the Big XII's two slots already spoken for, Texas had to settle for the Holiday Bowl where it was beaten by Washington State. But a year later, the 'Horns managed to avoid a return trip to San Diego by being engulfed in yet another BCS controversy.

Ironically, after being the BCS victim the first two years of its existence, Bill Snyder's Wildcats finally made its BCS bowl debut by earning the Big XII's automatic bid. K-State lost to Ohio State, 35-28, in a wild Fiesta Bowl.

*The Extra Game: On Jan. 9, 2004, Ted Waitt, CEO of Gateway Computers offered a $31 million package for a national championship game between USC and LSU. Despite vocal support from both teams, the NCAA did not consider the offer.

BCS Formula Review: With no audible criticism of its formula -- thanks to having two, and only two, undefeated teams in 2002 -- the BCS for the first time in four years maintained the same formula with only a slight adjustment to decrease the value of "quality win." This little-known adjustment actually thew some extra fuel on the controversy because LSU would've gotten an extra .40 points with its victory over Georgia, giving it a much more robust final lead of .56 over USC.

Analysis: Just how close was the LSU-USC spread? Had one of the four computers that ranked LSU No. 2 and USC No. 3 switched places for those teams, the Trojans would've gotten the coveted No. 2 BCS slot by .01 of a percentage point. Or, if the Tigers had not made the quantum leap from 54th to 29th in the SOS rating in the space of one week -- let's say they finished 34th instead, then USC would've been ahead by .04 of a percentage point. Yes, had any of the teams that USC played won one more game or any of LSU's opponents lost one more game, then it would've been a different outcome.

But still not a just outcome.

LSU was not undeserving of a spot in the BCS title game. That's not the issue at all. The "correct" result should've been a USC-LSU title game in the Sugar Bowl. The team that didn't belong there was Oklahoma, which failed to win its own conference after getting blown out in the Big XII title game -- in fact, a game that was not as close as the four-touchdown spread suggested.

An easy remedy could've been found, as early as 2001, after Nebraska somehow secured safe passage to the BCS title game without even winning its division, let along the conference. The old bowl alignment was always arranged to match conference champions in the most prestigious bowls, and therefore a pre-requisite of winning one's conference would not be unreasonable for teams vying to play in the BCS title game.

But the BCS refused to insert this one amendment -- even to this day. After the catastrophe of 2003, when the No. 1 team in both polls was denied a place in its title game that resulted in a split championship, the BCS was forced back to the drawing board, and smashed it up. A brand new formula was concocted to appease an increasingly angry and skeptical public.

The formula overhaul, however, would not save the BCS from the raging controversy of 2004.

7 comments:

Anonymous
said...

LSU was the only national champion in 2003. You have to play in the national championship game, by definition - if there is a national championship game, to be the national champion. LSU won that game, so they were national champions.

USC is usually very good and always overrated, because so many of the sports world's national media live in California. The fact that the AP decided to name USC champions is of no import to anyone except for USC fans

Finally, USC hardly "romped" to BCS titles in 2004 and 2005. They won easily in 2004, their only recent football national championship. They were beaten by Texas in 2005 and Texas was the national champion that year.

Somehow I found myself reading this. Hadn't thought about it for years. It's funny to still see the same mistakes made and same opinions masquerading as facts.

1. If "word was that the Sooners would stay No. 1, even if they lost the (BigXIICC) game," why the conclusion that the "team that didn't belong was Oklahoma"? A team that was considered by many the "Team of the Century" weeks before. 19 yr olds listen to the media ... too much. They knew they didn't have to win their CCG.

3. Why "as expected, USC ascended to No. 1 in both polls while LSU moved up to No. 2"? Because USC lost earlier than LSU did. Each poll as the season wound down, LSU closed the gap with the Trojans.

4. "But then Boise State beat Hawaii." This more than most things you wrote shows the abject foolishness of your whinecolumn. The BCS ain't finished until all the data is in. If you choose to look at the data before the final games are played, that's a failure on your part, not the BCS's.

5. "First of all, it's (SOS) hardly an objective tool, almost as arbitrary as the human polls." But you complain that the human polls were not strictly obeyed by the BCS because USC was No. 1 in both? I thought the polls are "arbitrary" ... you know, the kind of bad thing that needs correction ... like, by computer rankings?

6. "For the record, USC played at Auburn and Notre Dame and played home games against Hawaii and BYU while LSU faced Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana Tech and I-AA Western Illinois at home and Arizona on the road. Just how LSU's schedule could be considered to be among the top 30 in the country showed the flaw in the SOS ratings." Maybe it was the rest of their schedules that you didn't list that made the difference. Logical fallacy of ommission.

7. And then "USC impressively defeated Michigan, 28-14, in the Rose Bowl" but in "a rather sloppy and uninspired game, LSU edged Oklahoma, 21-14"? You're one of those guys dazzled by flashy offense and who thinks defense is dully, huh? How is 28-14 "impressive" and 21-14 "sloppy and uninspired"? Seven lousy points? Really?

8. "Mike Bellotti, Ron Turner and Lou Holtz ... broke the contractual agreement and cast their No. 1 ballot for USC." No they didn't. The AFCA gave away to the BCS their No.1 spot based on the winner of the NCG. By contract. All of the coaches could have put USC in the No.1 slot on their ballots and ... what would have happened? Nothing. LSU would still have the crystal trophy in their case.

9. "The Tigers got their half of the title, but were quickly forgotten as USC romped to the BCS title games the following two seasons." A statement that makes you an idiot. Nobody's "quickly forgotten" LSU's 2003 title, most definitely some USC fans I know who still chafe at the idea they were left out of the big game.

10. "Just how close was the LSU-USC spread?" Yes, it was essentially a three-way deadheat. Someone had to be left out. If LSU had been left out in favor of USC and OU, why do I think you wouldn't be here whining about the injustice of it all.

11. "The 'correct' result should've been a USC-LSU title game in the Sugar Bowl." On this we can agree. And you know what, Chad Lavalais and LaRon Landry and Corey Webster would have smothered Leinart just like they did the Heisman Trophy-winning White. I surely wish it had been LSU-USC, but USC fans should watch what they wished for. Because they'd be "light" one National Championship even beyond the one they lost for cheating.

"ABOUT THE GURU""Samuel Chi... wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle/Examiner, Contra Costa Times, and Pasadena Star-News... After getting out of the hospitality business and returning to his natural habitat - Southern California..."

Samuel Chi

The Guru is a journalist who takes time from his busy schedule to provide this important public service. And of course, the Guru is so well-rounded that he has interests beyond the gridiron and crystal ball. Check out his other adventures -- after first buckle your seat belt.